Viking Game In Female Porn

A book in the genre of “historical fiction”, (meaning, I suppose, that the authoress did some casual researching of the time period she’s writing about before letting her hamster roam wild and free), is a great example of literature as female porn. From the book description (h/t Randall Parker):

For as long as Arienh can remember, her Celtic people have feared the deadly Viking raids. She knows their brutality first hand, having lost the men from her own family and village to their swords. When she encounters and wounds a Viking warrior one stormy night, she has every right to want him dead. Instead, she allows him shelter in her cottage. Although she fears him, his confidence and teasing manner give her pause. He acts as if she belongs to him. As if he knows her.

Ronan didn’t expect Arienh to recognize him. Why should she? They were both just children when his uncle forced him into a raid against her village. But Ronan risked his life to protect the young Arienh from his marauding kinsmen. Now that the time has come for Ronan and the other warriors to choose wives, he has returned to claim the beautiful girl who captured his heart so long ago.

But for men accustomed simply to taking what they want, wooing the courageous, headstrong Celtic women is easier said than done. And for Arienh, who always sacrificed her own happiness for the sake of her people, trusting—and loving—a Northman may be impossible. By turns poignant and humorous, Loki’s Daughters is a stirring tale of unlikely lovers, forged in dangerously opposite worlds yet bound together by sacrifice, strength, and undeniable passion.

If you listen closely to a woman — very closely, to the subtext between the lines, and to the details that trickle from her when she’s giving her inner voice an unrestricted outlet for expression — you will catch glimpses of the true nature of her sexuality. Fleeting shadows of raw desire that flit in and out of awareness, both hers and yours. Invariably these subconscious resurrections all point in one direction — women love to be seduced by dominant men. They dream of submitting to entitled men who confidently claim rights to their quarry. The brutality of Viking violence yields to the mind capture of Viking game, apparently, in the minds of women of the vanquished tribe. This pattern — of women of defeated tribes quickly acquiescing to the rulership and the sexual privilege of the conquering men who slew the women’s brothers and fathers and husbands — is seen all over the world, and has likely evolved to preserve the female reproductive prerogative.

In other words, treacherous disloyalty of convenience is an inseparable part of female psychology. It is bred in her nature, and appeals to logic will do nothing to dislodge or amend it. The only god woman obeys is the god of WINNING.

Randall asks:

Have you considered writing some of these books? You might be able to get rich off it. You could push more female buttons per page than the average woman writer manages.

It’s a good question why more men don’t write romantic pulp fiction (aka female porn) for profit, under a female pseudonym if necessary. I guess men aspire to greater accomplishments in life.

554 Responses

Trying a little of this myself right now. Due to insane local laws, I can’t trap and transport the raccoons that roam our yard, going for our chickens (holed up in the Gibraltor coop I built for them). I can, however, kill the little cute bastards if they are a nuisance and cause damage. Just not for their meat or fur.

My wife doesn’t want to know what I do at night when I hear the noises they make, yet she makes sure I heard it. And wants to know the bloody details the next day. I make sure she knows that I spotted them physically checking out the chicken coop (usually true), and if she starts to feel sorry for the little cute raccoons, to imagine our pet chickens ripped apart, our dog disemboweled, and our young son attacked.

Now that her hamster is fueled, it can justify the attraction she feels as I protect our home and property, even from the cute little raccoons. Game has helped once again with my sex life, as I can give her hamster the juice it needs, without having to beta-size myself.

The comment that sealed the deal? “They are really cute little buggers, and it’s too bad they won’t learn to just avoid our yard. But there’s no way I’m going to let my family and property be hurt by some cute but vicious animal. Nor am I going let some bleeding heart PETA lawyer tell me to just suck it up and learn to live with it.” I think her ovulation cycle sped up a little just hearing me say that.

That’s good. I would use that, but not to her, I don’t have to game her too hard at this point. But if I ever speak to one of our friends about it, it’ll be about that long.

Slow smile. Change of subject. And let the women folk pump her for details later in the kitchen. You see, that way she does most of the work of giving herself the tingles for later in the evening.

Just watched this in action last weekend (over another topic), she could barely wait for our son to go to bed. The funny thing is, it works even if the other women say negative things, as long as my wife really believes it was an alpha behavior (and can sense the other women really know it was too).

“The comment that sealed the deal? “They are really cute little buggers, and it’s too bad they won’t learn to just avoid our yard. But there’s no way I’m going to let my family and property be hurt by some cute but vicious animal. Nor am I going let some bleeding heart PETA lawyer tell me to just suck it up and learn to live with it.”

I said this in another recent thread. With regard to compassion, women often feel compassion for those that know how to appeal to their emotions, or for those that don’t deserve it at all. So often, they have compassion for the wrong people or the wrong things, and not enough for their own.

At least your wife sounds like she trusts your wisdom and accepts your decisions, unlike so many other wives who are in constant struggle with their husbands.

Actually, women tend to – even more than men – rally to the defense of their blood relatives. This does perforce not include their husbands. Fairy tales have more evil stepmothers than evil stepfathers, although both are legion. Hansl and Gretl would understand.

Exactly. That’s how Viking society functioned. Women were very important to running the household. Irish were slaves or allied and Irish women may have made it there as slaves, but it was almost an ideal Viking society. Iceland was a sort of libertarian paradise enforced by a democratic institution- the Thing. Norse poetry is all almost exclusively Icelandic.

Yes. Self-selected libertarians – only those who detested central authority would undertake such an arduous trip and settlement in an area where hardly any trees grew. An early offshore tax haven, in modern parlance. But it worked because of special circumstances, mainly the above plus low value to an invader and hard to get to. Cost/benefit analysis by prospective invaders kept them off for centuries.

Not quite. Iceland was populated by political escapees from Harald Fairhair. But they did not want too many people to follow, Iceland cannot support that many people. And they definitely did not want the island to appear worthy of conquering.

Now, Greenland was populated by a much smaller population (or two, depending on how you count), led by Erik the Red whose bad temper had resulted in him killing four people, and the rest of the Icelanders did not want him around, and was facing being outlawed or to leave. So he left, being outlawed has a serious impact on your life expectancy. But he was kindof lonely, only a few families, so he WANTED people to come and join him.
Thus the name Greenland. And the people who went to Greenland were Icelanders.

“This pattern — of women of defeated tribes quickly acquiescing to the rulership and the sexual privilege of the conquering men who slew the women’s brothers and fathers and husbands — is seen all over the world, and has likely evolved to preserve the female reproductive prerogative.
In other words, treacherous disloyalty of convenience is an inseparable part of female psychology.”

It’s all DNA’s fault.

DNA doesn’t give a shit if a girl’s relatives were slain by the conquerors. DNA just wants to perpetuate itself. If making the girl spread her ‘gina to the conquerors insures that DNA is perpetuated, then DNA don’t give a fuck.

p.s.

You could easily replace “Viking” with “black” in the book’s description, and voila! You have America.

The Western Europeans are in deep trouble. If you look long enough at the videos of jihadidiots screaming in public in Western European cities then you’ll see one of those creeps say that the European women are legitimate war booty. Something like 1/3 of the rapes in Malmo are done by Islamic immigrants who look at infidel women as less than human.

It boggles the mind how much the left coddles those @ssholes. Even Obama states at the UN that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet Mohammed?” Where the f*ck was that in his oath of office??? What a jizzmopping douchebag.

I googled for “legitimate rape” and found no obvious and sensible definition. However, reasonable construction delivers an interpretation of “rape in fact, but technically legal”. With that definition, taxation and regulation are by far the largest instances, i.e. forcibly extracting resources.

As best I can guess, what the guy meant by ‘legitimate rape’ was a violent, unprovoked attack by a criminal predator Or someone she found unattractive. As opposed to ‘date rape’, meaning the girl is already half naked and drunk when she gets to the guys’ house, wants to have sex but either changes her mind at the last second or decides afterwards that she was ‘raped’.

OK, thanks That makes more sense. I took “legitimate” as pertaining to the rape (a strange oxymoron) but you assume that what is meant is that the act is legitimately classified as rape. Makes more sense.

In legal terms there is no such thing as a legitimate or date rape. Either the facts fit the definition or they don’t.
He either didn’t knew what he was talking about or he wasn’t capable of chosing the right words to explain what he meant.
Whatever the reason, he is a politician and as such should know that everything he says will be unter close scrutinity, especially on such a sensitive topic…

Ok, I think I know what the idiot meant by legitimate rape. You have to hear the whole thing he said so you don’t miss the context. Additional, I heard him interviewed a few hours after he said this and he alluded to an interesting theory, but quite irrelevant to rape, so I still don’t know how he reconciles it all in his head.

But first, there is a theory that not all of the male’s sperm can actually impregnate the female’s egg. Some sperm are thought to be acting like soldiers, and will kill the sperm of strange male who don’t belong in her cervix. He meant in a real rape situation, where the woman doesn’t want the sex at all, like with a stranger in a dark alley, most of the time the woman will not get pregnant because the sperm of her husband inside of her already can sense the sperm of the strange male who don’t belong in her and kill them. Therefore, if she did get pregnant then it wasn’t rape. It was more a single woman with buyer’s remorse. That’s what he sorta meant.

Look, he is an idiot. First, even if this theory is true, maybe the woman is not married or sexually active at the time of the rape, so there is no hubby’s sperm protecting her from the big bad wolf, lol.

Second, it also depends when she had sex last with hubby. If it was over two days ago, there would not be any of hubby’s sperm still alive or enough of them in her cervix to do the job. She’d have to have sex with hubby the night of the rape ASAP so that his soldier sperm can prevent the stranger’s sperm from impregnating her. What woman has sex with her hubby the same night she gets raped? Like I said, he is an idiot, although this theory could very well be true about the male’s ejaculate being comprised from different types of sperm.

Honestly, the guy is a nutcracker. A woman can get pregnant from all situations and he didn’t take into consideration a single woman who gets raped and doesn’t want it.

Yes, I finally got that. And yes, he is an idiot.
But the sperm duking it out is interesting. See “Sperm Wars” by
Robin Baker, it will blow your mind. Note also the peculiar
glans penis, designed to scoop out the sperm from the predecessor.

Wow! Again. first it was Bastiat (my comment to you is caught in moderation but maybe later it will be visible) and now “sperm Wars”

At least I know a lot of what I say has some basis to it.

I checked it out on wiki and then on Amazon. It’s fascinating stuff.

From wiki:

“A major focus of the book is sperm heteromorphism in which not only are a variety of morphological types of sperm apparent in every normal human ejaculate but also at any one time fewer than 1% seem capable of responding to and fertilizing an egg. A similarly low proportion of fertile sperm is found in the ejaculates of mice. Baker calls these fertile sperm “egg-getters”, and claims that the rest of the sperm in the ejaculate are infertile “kamikaze sperm” or “blockers”, whose primary purpose is to prevent other men’s sperm from getting to the egg. He cites data suggesting that in Britain at least 4% of children (but perhaps as many as 6-12%) are conceived via sperm competition, and claims that this lower figure is consistent with the earlier finding that 10% of children have a biological father who is other than their supposed father. Baker describes in detail how “killer sperm” actively seek out rival sperm and kill them with poison from acrosomes to prevent them from getting to the egg. This literal sperm warfare was not observed in a subsequent experiment, but Baker criticizes the protocol in this latter experiment.”

Another from wiki”

“Although Baker draws a clear distinction between “predatory rape” and “date rape”, the book has drawn criticism for portraying “date rape” and “rough-and-tumble intercourse” as being on the same spectrum of behaviour: a test of the male’s strength and ability. Despite Baker asserting that the two behaviours are at different (illegal and legal) ends of that spectrum, his statement that the drawing of the line between criminal and non-criminal behaviour is a job for the legal profession and not for the biologist has led some to interpret his words as meaning that he sees no real difference between the two:
Initially, she can simply watch him in competition with other males. … But finally, the only real test a woman can set is whether a man can negotiate and overcome her own defences. To test this, she has to resist first verbally, then physically. The stronger and more realistic her resistance, the better the test.
In this context he makes comparison with the many examples of aggressively induced ovulation in mammals, including the extreme example of mink in which if the female does not experience physical trauma at the male’s hands, she does not ovulate”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_Wars

But I have to say some of his theories are too far gone, as he tries to explain certain things with various biological justification like homosexuality. I don’t think homosexuality has any biological explanation.

It is a learned behavior with the majority of male homosexual ending that way because they were molested before puberty or soon after, so that their first pleasurable sexual experience was with another male. Homosexuals thorough their life try to re-enact that first pleasurable experience they had sexually, and that’s why they always go to other males for that feeling.

If one is not sure homosexuality in males is a learned behavior, just think of the ancient Greeks. Most of the adult males had before-puberty boy lovers. Eventually, most of the male population preferred homosexual sex. That’s one of the reasons for the fall of Greece. It’s not possible that all Greek men of that time were born that way. It’s obvious, it became a learned behavior. Homosexuality destroys civilizations.

Female homosexuality is a different issue though. It’s also a choice, but it mostly chosen by women when they became adults. Usually the real lesbians (botchy types) are not feminine enough or had real rough relationships with men, even with their fathers, so they look for women.

The bisexual ones who are pretty enough to be with men too, are just cultivating the innate sexual nature within the female to be also a lesbian. I think female sexuality is much less fixed than male and women can become lesbians consciously.

Inevitably someone will consider the women of the jihadidiots legitimate war booty. Islam destroys itself in Syria, Muslims will burn in hell.
Judaism resembles Islam a lot. Yet, the Israelis do not put Palestinian women in harems. Weird.

Hehe. The niggers gonna be mighty surprised if their dreams come true and Mexicans take over America while Muslim Arabs take Europe.

Mexicans still show blackface on TV and run the prisons where the Mexican population is significant (i.e. +15%). They ally with everyone one but the niggers—preferred to use them as punching bags and ditch diggers. And ‘spic gangs keep taking nig territory wherever they roam.

And Muslim Arabs? They castrated black slaves (which they had well into the late 19th and early 20th century) to prevent any black blood passing on. An Arab woman who slept with a black man was executed and considered on par with blasphemers and murderers (read a non-bowdlerized version of Arabian Nights for that one). Egyptians rounded up black citizens following the riots in the last few years and starting killing them indiscriminately.

And let’s not get into what the Chinese would do to nigs if in charge….what they’ve been doing to the Ughyers (Turkish-Mongolians) in China makes the legends of Jim Crow look nice in comparison. Imagine what they’d do to stupider, less civilized nigs…

Any nigger who thinks “whitey” is their problem is going be shocked should whitey get replaced, and beg for his white master back to have his women willingly, again.

We freed you, at the cost of many white lives… white lives which continue to be sacrificed to this very day in the form of black-on-white crime.

We provided environments in which many blacks have and continue to achieve mightily, beyond the wildest dreams of their ancestors and/or current compatriots…

And for those who can’t make the cut to a better station, we provide, as best we can, protection from yourselves… though you invariably turn our cities into ghettos and no-man-lands, despite massive time, money, and effort thrown your peoples’ way by well-meaning and tragically-naive whites.

Blacks are ungrateful, period. White people did and are doing a lot to help them progress, yet all they can do is be ungrateful, feel entitled, request special treatment, and abuse all of the above by committing the largest share of crime.

I mentioned in another thread that hater Lamont Hill. His piece is entitled “The 15 Most Overrated White People” which was published in the huffing and puffing post. All he can do is trash important whites throughout history, not just American whites (who he might think ‘did his ancestors wrong by enslaving them’). This means he is simply jealous of whites and their achievements over the millennia. It has nothing to do with the past, like slavery or imagined white racism.

Let’s repeat, if it weren’t for whites, Africans would still be living in jungle huts. It appears slavery served them well after all.

Revisionist history: Now Abe Lincoln is becoming more and more hated by them, he is being called a racist in their leftists schoolbooks. It seems Blacks can’t feel the emotion of being grateful to anyone, not even for one who benefitted them. They are nothing but hateful and jealous, and they project it on whites. Who are you kidding? Get a grip on reality, buddy.

I live in the south and have been around plenty of blacks during my life. Envy and jealousy are defining character traits for them. Huge swaths of “drama” that go down in their communities because of completely irrational envy. I wonder if there is some kind of analog of this in the white race.

I very much doubt it. Whites understand that you can’t achieve or accomplish anything without putting in the time and working hard. Blacks have gotten so used to getting handouts from the government, which keep them both beholden to the state and poverty-stricken. Then they don’t understand why they remain poor, generation after generation. They are bitter, resentful, and jealous of whites’ wealth and success – blaming whites for their predicaments -instead of looking at black values, which teaches that they have to take from the white man because he owes them.

Give people free stuff and they become slaves to it. Blacks are slaves of their own greed. They love getting that food stamp card. That’s the most embarrassing thing for a human being – becoming charity cases – not earning your livelihood through your own sweat and hard work. I can’t see whites with conservative values, or even leftists wanting to live like this, although leftists love to appropriate other people’s wealth for government projects that distributes money and resources to blacks and other minorities. They think that by mandating redistribution, they are removing the shame from it. No such thing; blacks will always be known as charity cases until they change their mindset and start helping themselves, not blaming whites for their backward-ass ways.

I dated a dermatologist who would provide free services occasionally to needy people without insurance. Usually they would be black kids. However, one time he had a black guy with some skin condition who told him at the end of his visit that he also wanted to open an office just like his and start charging people and making lots of money like the dermatologist. LOL!

The dermatologist told him that it doesn’t work like this. You have to study hard, at least 10 years, and then go through more training before you can get a license or even open your own practice. I couldn’t believe this story when he told it to me. So many blacks are so ignorant about what hard work means and entails. They simply think white folks are privileged and that’s why they have businesses or medical practices, etc…. Really, it’s infuriating the level of ignorance mixed with entitled rhetoric coming out of the black community, and it has only gotten worse since Obama became president. I hope he doesn’t return to the White House in 2013. I had enough of him and his minions.

The key to nonwhite people understanding white people is to know they only interact with nonwhite people when it is to their benefit; this includes any and all “help”/support they provide nonwhite people.

They use the equivalent of a racial “Brifaults law” to regulate all their interactions with us.

Its real simple.

Since White people own all the wealth and means of production, its value is dependent on the availibilty of people who need the stuff they own.

In other words, without people (specifically non white people) everything white people own would lack value.

This is the real reason why white people produce and support programs to “help” black people.

And all the aid programs world wide (health, food, medicine, education…) White people need nonwhite people to need the stuff white people own and control (which is anything that has value)

The key to nonwhite people understanding white people is to know they only interact with nonwhite people when it is to their benefit; this includes any and all “help”/support they provide nonwhite people.

Heh, heh… good ol’ thwack, making our points for us again.

When we help the disadvantaged, we’re only being selfish.

When we don’t help, we’re being selfish.

Nothing riles a white man so much as seeing his good intentions and expenditure of time and money (and often the proverbial blood, sweat, and tears) shat upon by the unappreciative.

Of course, to negroes, taking advantage of someone is a mark of honor… they call it “getting over”, and celebrate it with singular pride.

And then they decry people who are “prejudiced”, and hate them “just because of the color of their skin.”

I hardly ever resort to personal attack or invective, but I will call out twacwy’s post as pure drivel. Now, of course a bigger market is helpful, but not necessary. Note the Chinese (not white, but it doesn’t matter) suddenly discovering that they might sell to each other. Same principle.

This ties in nicely to game thinking, which I’m beginning to think beta men can apply game to heterosexual black male to-non-black male interactions (the famous AMOG-techniques being one version) as well as to male-female sexual encounters.

The nicer you are to niggers, the worse they act. They perceive kindness as weakness. The same as women.

This is partially why both groups are ardent leftists. the desire to have a totalitarian state gets them wet/hard—they want a strong dictator beating them down.

I wouldn’t be surprised if many black women have an extremely disturbed and sordid white overseer/plantation owner rape fantasy. The more degrading (gang rape, torture), the more likely.

One Ancient Egyptian observer remarked that the Nubians were fierce and hostile people when shown even the slightest mercy but quickly returned to submission when force was applied. Wish I could find that quote…

Female gorillas will watch the new silver back kill her infant. Basically if his DNA is such as to kill the previous alpha, then she might as well start ovulating and have his offspring, at the expense of her existing offspring.

I didn’t know that about apes, but its the same with felines. Males who successfully drive off the previous alphas kill the cubs (kittens) while the females hang back. You know they could stop or at least make the males actions too costly and save their progeny, but “damn nature, it be scary.”

Bear do not generally do any such thing. After mating, the male goes off, taking no further interest in the female or the eventual offspring. The male bear probably has no idea which cubs are by him. The whole lion dynamic works in the context of a pride, i.e. a group of lions. Bears do not form groups.

These situations are not analogous. Black boys in schools aren’t beating up the best of the best of the white jocks, they are gang attacking the wimpy white kids or the outcast WoW types. I think our understanding is that in Viking warfare that they were going after the leaders of their enemy first and foremost…what good would it have done if they just offed the hemits on the frges of civilization but didn’t have the nuts to strike those power? I swear, sometimes it seems like there are more black jock sniffers in the HBD/Manosphere then there even is among young, dumb white sluts.

Much of the fear of Viking’s resulted in them blatantly flouting convention about whom to attack. While the Christian men lined up to “fight it out” on a field away from town, hoarding women and children (and gold) into off limits churches, the Vikings were not above simply burning down the church, after pillaging it.

Nordic social structures were not nearly sophisticated enough for anyone to bother about who was the “leaders” of the “enemy.” The whole point of the raids was simply that, to raid. And pillage, and rape. And bring some loot back home.

Stuki
Nordic social structures were not nearly sophisticated enough for anyone to bother about who was the “leaders” of the “enemy.” The whole point of the raids was simply that, to raid. And pillage, and rape. And bring some loot back home.
———————–

bla, bla, bla, sounds like niggers to me.

But you wanna heap praise on them cause they had blond hair and blue eyes.

This is exactly what lions do. Fascinating documentary on Animal Planet.

Each pride of lions has a clutch of females and 1 maybe 2 males. By definition most males (lion betas) do not own a tribe. They are solitary nomads with a permanent case of blue balls.

The males in each pride stay on top for just a few years at best, knocking up all the females. When the male contingent ages and weakens, 1-2 younger males move in and drive of the incumbent males. They kill all the cubs. Shortly after the females are in heat again. The documentary shows the females aggressively coming on to the new males shortly after the males kill their cubs. They are begging for sex.

This pattern appears again and again in mammals. Humans are no different.

“This pattern appears again and again in mammals. Humans are no different.”

Well that’s the whole thing; humans are different. We have a brain. We don’t have to act like animals. Lions are pre-conditioned and pre-disposed to behave a certain way and they can’t think their way out of their pre-disposition. Humans can.

I am tired of people using the animal kingdom as a justification for acting in an evil way. That’s exactly how Hitler believed. He thought human beings should do whatever the hell they want to do because animals have no morality and no boundaries, and humans are the same as animals.

Leftist too have very similar outlook to Hitler. They think everything goes if you can justify it using bogus explanations, much like Hitler did. They have no concept of individual liberties and rights, or the pursuit of happiness. It’s not a befitting thing to equate human beings with animal predisposed behavior.

Exactly. Yes, animal parallels can give clues to what is “natural” behavior in humans. But nobody wants too much “natural” behavior – at least not when it comes to their enemies – they might be killed outright.

To have a civilization, especially including having people living in much denser groups than Bushmen, you need some brakes on “natural behavior”, preferably inculcated in the young and internalized, and in cases where this fails, enforced by the larger group (not necessarily a police force).

What drives me crazy is single mothers who take up with a new BF and put their children in danger just for the hell of being with him, either neglecting their children, where they become easy victims of abduction by serial killers, or allowing the new BF to abuse or molest their children by turning a blind eye because they don’t want to lose him. It’s sick. That’s why I often don’t advocate the mother getting the kids. Show me children of father-controlled households (whether single fathers or married) where the kids ever got abducted, abused, or molested? It’s always done to single-mother’s kids by their BF or the new husbands.

Also, research shows kids that grow up with a father around have a lot more self-esteem, stay out of trouble, and achieve better in school. They also do better in life. Kids raised by single mothers end up in trouble; most don’t amount to anything. Of course, there is always the exception to every rule, but this is usually how it goes down with the average person, unless the mother has her head screwed on right.

That’s why I say, let every dad who wants to raise his kids, do so. Women should be happy to let their ex-husbands raise their kids so they can be free to look for a new partner without the detriment to the kids. Trouble is, they want child and spousal support, and that’s why they want sole custody.

Because the way it’s worked out these days, “child support” works out to be not just child support, but ex-wife support, so this constitutes “cash and prizes”, which are in turn used to source better, more alpha sperm.

It’s a natural outflow of feminism. We formerly restrained women, so they were by and large virtuous, and we codified their virtue in our legal codes. We then removed the restraint in law, they became un-virtuous in practice, and yet we retained the legal assumption of the virtuous woman.

As best I can guess, seeing women as ‘pure & virtuous’ must have started after the Napoleonic wars, a period known as ‘Biedermeier’ in German speaking countries, ‘Regency’ in England, which was charcaterized by the rise of a large and wealthy middle-class who were zealously conservative, morally buttoned up to the rafters and culturally about as bland as Melba toast. Before that, most of Western society saw women largely as sluts and whores who’ll fuck anything, especially for money.

An Arab ruled over what is now France in the 3rd Century CE (IIRC), right before a bunch of Germans migrated to Africa…it’s not exactly a new thing and it’s surely not what’s bringing Europe down in a silent blaze of financial shenanigans. Procreation between peoples has always happened and will always happen, it’s a matter of the health of one’s mother culture far more than anything else. That’s why the Romans didn’t get bothered about racial mixing but about respecting the power of Rome. Anyway, Europe is a product of interracial mixing…just go ask the Hungarians, Italians or Spanish if you don’t believe me.

Define “Grown-up women”. The majority of women are basically feral when it comes to sex and relationships. They function like young girls because they’ve never been forced to grow up when it comes to this area of their lives.

You are right that this works on young girls but not grown up women. That’s an academic distinction at best when almost every woman is not mentally mature.

Maturity in women has nothing to do with chronological age, as it does with men. Look at old hags, they still don’t know how to relate to men after all their supposed living and experience. I still find them the stupidest women on the planet. Younger girls are much sharper.

Never ask an old hag for any advice/opinion on social issues or relationships. Her stupidity will send you to the mental ward. Liberals and old hags have much in common. They spew the same nonsensical bullshit.

It’s very rare to encounter a truly grown-up woman; she usually requires minimal Game, and her age is irrelevant.

It depends on how you define mental maturity. The modern-day version of maturity is largely based on executive function (ability to organize, make decisions, recognize future consequences) which is controlled in the prefrontal cortex….an area of the brain that matures far more quickly in females. And in adulthood, the prefrontal cortex is actually larger and more active in women than in men.

@Tyrone, regarding Andrea’s post, this is just the hamster spinning. Ignore. Wimminz talking about how big their prefrontal cortex is… myuziweighsaton.

If women had mental maturity, this blog would not exist. As it is, this blog exists to subvert/pervert women’s minds/expectations. Sadly, women these days are like playthings for an aware man… easy to manipulate and tilt.

Actually, I disagree. Women can be VERY careful planners etc. A lot of the cynicism about women exposed on this blog is based on the experience of seeing unmarried barflies in their 20s in action. At that age, and WHEN STILL CHILDLESS, women are bad planners as a rule. Especially barflies. And men are often worse. It would be interesting to try to plot a distribution curve for readiness, willingness and ability to plan, depending on age, gender, marital status and number of children. (Note that all but the first are results as well as possible causes, messy stuff.). Something similar happens to men when a male barfly becomes a paterfamilias. And all of these generalizations have exceptions.

I cannot remember the details, but some study showed that unmarried men are the worst at handling money, followed by unmarried women. Married people of both sexes came out much better. Again, it is arguable what is cause and what is effect etc.

There are opinions that women do mature (physically) faster than men, but that men never stop. Women reach their full brain maturity by the time they’re in their early twenties. Men’s brains keep maturing until at least their early thirties, with some evidence saying it never stops.

However, that’s not relevant. You say that maturity involves recognizing future consequences. If that’s the case, why do so many women ride the carousel, get pregnant and end their twenties as spinster, single mothers? Was that consequence not recognizable, or are over half the female population simply not mature?

“The majority of women are basically feral when it comes to sex and relationships. They function like young girls because they’ve never been forced to grow up when it comes to this area of their lives.”

I agree with you. Many women resist growing up in this area. I was like that, too. Is there anything more beautiful than being a young girl and having a chance to fall in love with a masculine, alpha man? It’s so difficult to stop fantasizing about alpha males, to realize that you are not a little girl anymore and accepting that you have to become a responsible adult! I guess it’s equally difficult for men who need to accept the fact that they will never sleep with a young girl again. Anyway, with some effort, it can be done and life gets so much better when you finally manage to grow up mentally. This doesn’t mean that I gave up on love, just the opposite, I’m now deeply convinced that we are never too old for love! Even when you don’t have a chance to get married, you can still love your family, friends and all human beings on this planet. I’ve never been happier in my life!

Ah yes, The Vampire Diaries…..Where actors in their mid 20’s and early 30’s play teenagers who turn into (always perfectly coiffed and HAWT) Halloween monsters, annihilate half the population (not to mention the high school locker room) of a small Virginia town, and yet life in said town continues as if nothing happened despite the ongoing bloodbath.

This in a nutshell explains White female enthusiasm for: Immivasion, Sharia/Muslim domination, mass non-White immigration/preferences, Affirmative Action, PC dogma, Multiculturalism, etc. Of course the converse is true, a movement based on asserting historic rights and ownership CAN succeed if it is based on fear, intimidation, and power-dominance. Women fall in line with whoever is the most violent and dominant. Simple as French women sleeping with the Wehrmacht in WWII.

Yes, Whiskey, you get my drift. This is what my AMOG amounts to. Outpolygamy Islam; “Four wives is NOT enough!!!”
We’ll see whose hypergamy is the strongest. Islam destroys itself in Syria. Iran self-destructs by a rising median age, without the possibility of euthanasia. Israel self-destructs by a growing population of Ultra-Orthodox. Conan will have the Shemitic Belit.

I think the host id’d the anglosphere as formerly the product of the most militarily capable beta-male protestant culture before … you know. A nice tank is a good way for beta male society to, ah, show cultural confidence and install that loving feeling.

“Nationbuilding” is idiotic bullsh¡t. What we need is a Sunni/Shia “War of the Roses”, with civilized society standing on the sidelines ready to bomb the sh¡t out of either of them if they start killing/threatening our own.

What we have now is, instead, an elaborate game of “Mother May I”, played with heathens.

I could care less what these idiots do, as long as it doesn’t affect me or mine. I would like to see them go back in their caves, so we could get on with our (productive) lives.

Don’t try to save these trogs. Let them go their own way. For some, the 9th Century is “where it’s at”, and they want to stay there. And I have some sympathy for this, in fact! Leave them be, but punish them severely if they seek to extend the dar al Islam to the dar al Harb (where you live).

Hypergamy dictates at a very base level that females source the best sperm. Access to sperm from a foreign, virile source increases the likelihood of creating progeny with hybrid vigor.

Women will maintain the existing society as part of their female role (primarily to preserve/improve their status and the status of their progeny), but they will not defend the society like a male would.

The breeding of dogs is a sorry story for the most part, and not much should be generalized from that. The link points to a writer that dismisses most dog breeders as “irresponsible”. Maybe he is right. However, his evidence is at best anecdotal and based on what he wants to see.

Tons of other sources supporting it. That one has a pretty digestible explanation.

Sometimes favorable alleles are spread through gene flow. No one would contest that. However that is something very different from hybrid vigor.

Pretty straightforward. You breed two animals together, you get an offspring with a mix of the parent’s genes. You are not magically making new genes or magically improving the offspring (why would it?). It is just a mix which sometimes increases fitness, sometimes decreases fitness and sometimes has no effect on fitness.

You mix two pieces of shit together you still end up with shit.

Hybrid vigor (heterosis) can occur but it is by no means the rule. On the other hand you can have outbreeding depression when mixing dissimilar populations. It too can occur but it is by no means the rule.

If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that hybrid vigor is the very essence of genetics/evolution/humanity.

With that said, I saw a comment on this thread about how sometimes the hybridization goes awry. His example was some gal who was eurasian who ended up with beady eyes and a jaw like the front of a tractor (this made me laugh out loud).

OK, point taken, but “one swallow does not a Summer make”.

Most of my experience (two decades+) indicates that hybrid vigor is in effect. Anecdotal, to be sure, but I stand behind it. I even made one (half Irish and half Irish/British), and she’s a stunner (I get what I deserve).

“If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that hybrid vigor is the very essence of genetics/evolution/humanity.”

You are probably thinking of gene flow and the spread of favorable alleles. Nothing to do with hybrid-vigor (an old pre-modern genetics myth).

Tons of other resources on the internet which you are free to pursue.

“Most of my experience (two decades+) indicates that hybrid vigor is in effect. Anecdotal, to be sure, but I stand behind it. I even made one (half Irish and half Irish/British), and she’s a stunner (I get what I deserve).”

Much ado about nothing. It’s prima facie not a myth, and anyone that says otherwise is essentially an evolution denialist (OK, bear with me, I’m making a point here).

“Vigor” is meant here to be strictly referencing the organism’s resistance to disease and overall “fitness” to be in this world kicking arse, and having other genetic avoidance of DNA-dead-ends/poor outcomes (inbred characteristics, etc.). This is all “hybrid vigor” means – it doesn’t mean “she’ll be hawt.” That’s silly.

There are two genetic directives we (and all other animals/plants have), both intertwined: the carrier must survive, and the carrier must deliver (the DNA to the next generation). Again… intertwined.

So a man-jawed halfie demonstrates hybrid vigor in the sense that she is a strong organism (and is genetically predisposed away from in-bred issues), and is demonstrably able to reproduce. Is she “pretty”? Wrong question. Is she “strong/vigorous”? Right question. Drop your “First World Problems” view here. In the old way of thinking, a strong woman was worth more than an ethereal waif.

And the pretty soft-jawed halfie demonstrates hybrid vigor in that she is also more likely to be resistant to disease just like her man-jawed halfie sister (she’s “vigorous”). But she’s even more desirable, as her soft-jaw is more attractive. Perhaps she is also sexually attractive to both sub-races, which may serve it’s evolutionary purposes.

It’s not about sexual attractiveness so much as it is about genetic fitness. Drop the SWPL sensibility.

You’re making the WN point for us, thwackie… what you wind up with is a bunch of half-assed mongrels with little remarkable talents… and no starkly-delineated, TRULY DIVERSE, noble-looking thoroughbreds who are excellent at specific tasks.

Greg Eliot
You’re making the WN point for us, thwackie… what you wind up with is a bunch of half-assed mongrels with little remarkable talents… and no starkly-delineated, TRULY DIVERSE, noble-looking thoroughbreds who are excellent at specific tasks.
———————————
OK Greg, I get your point. But what is the point of being a “noble-looking thoroughbred” if you niether survive nor reproduce?

The remarkable talent of the “half-assed mongrel” is precisely his ability to survive and reproduce.

But what is the point of being a “noble-looking thoroughbred” if you niether survive nor reproduce?

Who says that’s the only alternative?

And if it were, well… the whole point is being the type of person… indeed, nation… for whom eking out rank survival in some sort of third world City Of God is not a preferred alternative to mere death.

And if it were, well… the whole point is being the type of person… indeed, nation… for whom eking out rank survival in some sort of third world City Of God is not a preferred alternative to mere death.

“There are worse things than dyin’.”
————————————————————————-
eeking out rank survival is what black people did before there were any white people.

Without us and our “vigor”, your pale ass would not even be here to call me a nigger and practice racism.

Actually, all of us, regardless of ethnicity owe so much to so few.
You can make your own picks, but I would pick Haber and Bosch as those who saved most of Europe (and many other places) from starvation.

Funnily enough, in this case the phenomenon is not dependent on some clever definition of vigor. The hybrid tends to grow faster, be bigger, stornger even a little smarter. Anything from corn to chickens (both bred in separate lines and you sow/raise the F1 generation). And it applies to people. I have seen the opposite at work. My maternal grandparents were first cousins. My mother was OK but her sister was a basket case – mentally.

I have a pet theory that the first born gets the best genes, and the others are “experiments” (and we know that all DNA experiments come from the males – women genetically do not experiment with their own genes, they replicate – hence the genetic NEED for hypergamy).

My guess is you are trying to be provocative but I will respond anyway.

From her perception hypergamy.

But let me ask you this. If the government today mandated that every man had to treat every slut as if she were a virgin and had to attribute as much marriage value to her as if she were a virgin, would this government mandate make the sluts marriage value equal to that of the virgin bride?

On the face of it, yes. But we have to realise that this value is artificial, it is propped up by an intervention into the market. If this artificial intervention were removed, the slut’s true marriage value would once again be much much less than that of the virgin bride.

Now what we have in Western societies is essentially the same thing. We have a government mandate which stipulates that White men aren’t to dominate men of other races, yet the reverse is not only ok, but celebrated. Now women are attracted to social dominance. So what essentially happens is non-white races get an artificial increase in their social dominance/status and hence an artificial increase in their attractiveness. Unshackle the bonds that bind white men (which Game will do, as these bonds are ideological and self-enforced), and they would soon re-establish their dominance in society, thus resulting in the very thought of miscegenation revolting a white woman much in the same way as the very thought of mating with an omega would.

Thus, the true value, not the artificial value, of a nigger that fucks a white woman, results in this occurrence as being characterised as hypogamy.

Now the only difference between what I just mentioned and the slut/virgin analogy above is that the attractiveness value of a slut vs a virgin is determined absolutely not relatively, it’s the number of cocks she’s had not the number of cocks she’s had relative to other women. Whereas here, the attractiveness value of dominance is determined relatively, it is determined with how a man ranks compared to other men in the dominance hierarchy, and as such, distorted relative rankings have an easier time of influencing the perception of attractiveness than distorted absolute rankings do.

I think you go too far by assuming you could write pussy-moistening literature well. Part of the reason women do it well is that they probably don’t often have any knowledge of the science behind their attraction, the cold logic of evolution. So the author paints a picture which emerges from her subconscious and is truer to her innermost dreams than what you or I could write, which would just be a translation of what we know about female desire from male-type rational understanding into what we believe female understanding to be.

Anyone who wants to write one for beer money, I’d be willing to entertain publishing it under Adam & Eve EPress, if you follow formula. I mean, it’s as ridiculously formulaic as a Scooby Do cartoon, and women are consuming them at a rate of 5 a week on Kindle. If you can’t think of a plot or characters, let me know. BONUS POINTS if you can write a straight-up, traditional female porn romance novel AND THEN write the other side from the male’s perspective, for a second sale. ALSO, consider writing it in three versions: clean, smutty, and slutty (literature, erotica, explicit porn). SAME story, just with some . . . extra hot bits if you wanna pay a little extra.

Dudes, we understand Game. We really could make a killing this way. I’ve already got one or two authors willing to give it a shot. Since 50 Shades, BDSM is fair game.

Being on Adam & Eve EPress might work against it’s appeal towards women. Women love to imagine that some how 50 Shades type books are not porn.

It helps to throw fantasy elements on it to give it a thin viel of being an actual story and not girl porn.Though I guess it could work without that. Some I thought might work include:

Vampire Huntress seduced by wearwolf and/or vampire (done to death though)
Religious right soccor mom seduced by the very pornstar/rockstar/rapper/whatever that her little conservative mommy group protests against
liberal tree hugger chick seduced by conservative business man
female super hero seduced by super villain (that one might not work, super heroes tend to appeal more toward males, although there is a small but growing number of female fans for that)
female/spy seduced by terrorist

Yeah books like 50 shades wind up on a table at the entrance of the bookstore, not in the greeting card aisle of the grocery. This makes it more socially acceptable to middle-class women and young girls. What’s funny is that the quality of the breakout female erotica over the last couple years is much worse than these 5 dollar paperbacks, if that’s possible.

Like many endeavours, romantic fiction is one where a handful get rich (probably no more than ten), many more make a modest living, and untold masses do it for next to nothing, either because they’re deluded, or because they enjoy it anyway and making any money is a bonus.

It is worth reading some of it though, to get the feel. I read about 30 of them around a year ago.

Two books by John Costello; ‘Virtue Under Fire’ and ‘Love, Sex, and War’ in which all too much of the above female psychology manifested itself;

“Of the 5.3 million British infants delivered between 1939 and 1945, over a third were illegitimate – and this wartime phenomenon was not confined to any one section of society. The babies that were born out-of-wedlock belonged to every age group of mother, concluded one social researcher:

Some were adolescent girls who had drifted away from homes which offered neither guidance nor warmth and security. Still others were women with husbands on war service, who had been unable to bear the loneliness of separation. There were decent and serious, superficial and flighty, irresponsible and incorrigible girls among them. There were some who had formed serious attachments and hoped to marry. There were others who had a single lapse, often under the influence of drink. There were, too, the ‘good-time girls’ who thrived on the presence of well-paid servicemen from overseas, and semi-prostitutes with little moral restraint. But for the war many of these girls, whatever their type, would never have had illegitimate children. (pp. 276-277)”

and;

“Neither British nor American statistics, which indicate that wartime promiscuity reached its peak in the final stages of the war, take account of the number of irregularly conceived pregnancies that were terminated illegally. Abortionists appear to have been in great demand during the war. One official British estimate suggests that one in five of all pregnancies was ended in this way, and the equivalent rate for the United States indicates that the total number of abortions for the war years could well have been over a million.

These projections are at best merely a hypothetical barometer of World War II’s tremendous stimulus to extra-marital sexual activity. The highest recorded rate of illegitimate births was not among teenage girls, as might have been expected. Both British and American records indicate that women between twenty and thirty gave birth to nearly double the number of pre-war illegitimate children. Since it appears that the more mature women were the ones most encouraged by the relaxed morals of wartime to ‘enjoy’ themselves, it may be surmised that considerations of fidelity were no great restraint on the urge of the older married woman to participate in the general rise in wartime sexual promiscuity. (pp. 277-278)”

Nor, did this behavior stop with the end of WWII, it was merely rationalized, codified, and approved by society by feminism and their Vichy males.

The other part for American men were that, to the long-suffering Brits and French, they were a godsend—-a multitude of men (and money and food) in their midst to push the Nazis back after losing a lot of their own men and suffering huge deprivations. Yes, they knew the mighty Russians were kicking ass and taking names, but they didn’t experience that in their midst.

American boys were pretty stunned at all the love they received from Brits and Frogs—especially the women, who saw them as heroes and replacements for the boy killed by the Nazis down the road. So American farm boys got it into their heads that the girls liked them for who they were (being a lot of provincial guys) instead of the hero-for-the-moment type.

Later, when these yanks and their kids came to Europe on vaca, when the hero-worship had faded, the Americansgot a little hurt that the love was gone, and the Euros found the faults in the provincials that before were greek gods in boots, and resented the way Americans thought they should be thought highly of like they had been in the war. Hence the stereotypes about the nasty Euros and dorky Americans emerged.

Brits get Mr. Darcy-made-pussy sooo much, its amazing. Pride and Prejudice has infiltrated so many cultures that if you’re a white Brit guy who’s not a chav and can sound even a bit posh you could nail a very hot girl—from Brazil, Italy, Russia, China, etc. Even if they never read the damn thing.

As an American, I actually have gotten the chivalrous-simple-Cowboy type thrown at me, which surprised me, since I thought that would passe, with the Cowboy Western dead and all. Or the sophisticated NYer, since I have lived there off and on.

News to me. With the exception of parts of the Spanish & Portuguese coasts, British tourists tend not to appear en masse, which is usually the underlying cause of ill will towards tourists by the local populace. I can’t remember ever coming across a case of Brits being despised (except by my dad, but he pretty much hates everyone), British (and Irish) men clean up pretty good with the ladies, too. British girls seem to either stick with British boys or go for Middle Easterners. Go figure. If any tourist nationality is ‘despised’ in Europe, it may be the Germans, based on the fact thet they do, indeed, tend to show up in large (and I do mean LARGE) numbers and seem to have an innate conviction that the world does, after all, belong to them. Which isn’t entirely incorrect and will become even more so after they buy up Greece, Spain and Italy, well, the parts they haven’t bought already. One nationality that has really fallen from grace, in a manner of speaking, would be the Italians. ‘Twas only about 40-50 years ago that the Italian Male was the ultimate guilty pleasure dreamboat of just about every non-Italian woman in Europe, North America and Australia. Not no more. They are no longer dark, mysterious and slimy enough and have thusly been replaced by darker, more mysterious and slimier, erm, dreamboats. All that is left for them are fat American co-eds oohing and aahing at ‘the balcony where Juliet stood’………..

The Brits are boorish in Portugal and Spain, and not present elsewhere. The Germans are world-reknowned for being annoying tourists. The Japanese treat tourism like extraterrestrial exploration (which makes perfect sense if you understand the Japanese at all). The new paradigm to watch develop is the “Chinese tourist”. So far, it’s a very strange thing.

Personally i don’t think that the British are arrogant louts and believe me, i have seen them in action aka vacation.
Actually you can mention the war to germans, but you might not like the answer you get…

A quick look indicates that the “quality” of tourists is situation-dependent, and most likely having selection biases. Those who run hotels that are part of top-level big international chains are likely to see another cut of any county’s population than those who run museums – or football stadia. Etc.

There is a certain dynamic at work here,, after the war was over. In the late forties and throughout most of the fifties, Europe was still wasted by the war. American tourists got lots of local currency for a dollar backed by a productive and intact economy back in the US:

So a shop clerk from Bonniessville would be temporarily rich. Now, many people are unable to handle this transition gracefully – regardless of nationality. So you have a country yokel hepped up on temporary richesse and the consequential testosterone rush would run around waving their money and asking “hoe much is that in dollars”. Of course the locals became resentful. (Women could be just as bad or worse, not sure about hormones here.)

Then came the sixties and early seventies. Within Europe, Scandinavians and Germans discovered that Spain was poor and cheap. With minor differences, the story above repeated itself. Some Spaniards still think of Northern Europeans as pigs, and various other things, unprintable.

By the time the eighties were running, Europe and the US got swarmed by rich Japanese. They may not have been country bumpkins, but deep down they didn’t believe the Gaijin were real people, and would literally just push them around – physically, as if the locals were cattle.

I was much sceptical of that but that anti-feminist ludovici’s work that heartiste linked to makes it sound not so deranged. (There is also a part about suffragetes, not quoting due to length)

But in World War II women’s ardour for war was even more blatant. In the months preceding it, few could have failed to observe that it was the English middle-class women who were the most rabid agitators for a war with Germany. Animated by their secret loathing of the masculine accent over the Dictatorships, they fiercely opposed what was called “appeasement.”
Nor was I alone in noticing this; for Duffer Coop (later Lord Norwich), himself an opponent of appeasement, writes of the year 1938: “I could count at that time, among my acquaintances, twelve happily married couples who were divided upon the issue of Munich, and in every case it was the husband who supported and the wife who opposed Chamberlain.” (Old MEN FORGET, 1953, Chap. XV). Philip Wylie noticed the same spirit in the U.S.A.; for he says of World War II, “it was the moms who have made the war.” (GENERATION OF VIPERS, 1942).
Thus, the political influence of women, whether direct or otherwise, has been the source neither of any urgently-needed reforms in our society, of any increase in our prosperity, nor of any guarantee of peace. By and large, they have shown that there was nothing specific in the form of real progress, which, as a sex, they had to contribute to the national life. On the contrary the enhancement of their power has been conterminous, not only with a steady decline in English prestige, prosperity, and psycho-physical standards, but also with the greatest and most ruinous war in all history.

This reminds me of when darkies bitch about how any white blood in their system is because of the “rapes” of their women bye evil whitey. They claim that whitey forced them down with overseer power, had their way, then sold families off to make money.

Stop the presses, Negroes.

Your women gladly and happily submitted themselves to their powerful white lords—-they were no different than the typical white scullery maid porked by a married British lord, his son, and his brother. Or the Chinese peasant girl who happily met the local mandarin under the cover of darkness to let him have his way with her.

Any white blood in your veins is the result of consensual submission of your ladies long ago—not rape. As your degenerate ghetto songs often praise, your whorish women worship dominance and power, and willingly yielded their ugly asses up as whores to the white men in a horny rage.

The angriest and loudest monkeys are always the lightest skinned ones—either because they want to seem more black than the darkest ones (to gain group acceptance) or to drum themselves out as leaders (having more non-black DNA, they are smarter than the average negroid).

Paul Krugman’s wife is almost a passer, but she’s a certified America-hating darkie who’s most responsible for making Professor CrazyBeard blame Bush for everything (a NY Times magazine article stated this). Malcolm X (who’s nickname was “Red” due to his red hair, likely from his momma shacking up with the first white man she could find) was also fairer-featured. Those darkies who formed the frats that excluded darker skinned niggers were at the forefront of communist agitation and riot-starting.

Give a nigger an inch, he’ll recline in it. Give him a bit of brain, and he’ll burn the world down.

As you can see from the little picture that is now included, I am about as white as they get. Born in Sweden. But it is not relevant to a reasoned argument. It does not matter if it is constructed by a green octopus from Mu Tau Ceti.

You can often evaluate a man by whom he chooses to marry. Many times, a man’s wife reflects his values. That’s why liberal men usually marry ugly masculinized angry females with a mouth full of tirades on everything, which radicalize their men.

Conservative men look for beauty and femininity in their females. They don’t want to marry butch, and they don’t want to marry a woman who puts her career ahead of her relationship with him.

Lily, I had a white brother in law and one time after he, my sister and myself had lunch at a cafe, we were walking down the street and as a care passed by a white man stuck his head out and yelled at my BIL, “whats the matter, can’t you get a white woman?”

Without pause he replied: “whats the matter, can’t you get a black woman?”

I didn’t understand what he meant at the time; but thinking back on it I now realize that for some white men having a hot blk woman is a sign of virility.

I bet he had been dying to say that out loud ever since he first fucked my sister; I suspect in some small part because he was also 18 years older than her.

The forgotten idiocy there is that some black person is trying to indict white people for something that his ancestor did. Hey, I may or may not be descended from a white rapist but you definitely are.

And even your tiny mind should be able to comprehend, as it has been covered in other threads, that the aristocratic South lived by a staunch code of honor, and widespread banging of negro slaves would not have been tolerated, especially by their womenfolk.

Of course, being a child of the ’70s, one can be forgiven for watching too many Mandingo movies and listening to too many Neil Young songs.

it’s never a surprise that blacks will be found violating honor codes… saw it dozens of times myself, back in the Army,
——————————————————-

Found?

Thats because white people can’t/won’t see their own pathologies unless they project them on to black people. In other words, when black people start doing something, theey ruin it for white people because NOW its a problem.

Slave/master miscegenation was not as widespread as the MSM would have us believe…. sheesh, we’ve covered this several times here at the chateau in the past few months alone.

The one glaring example of Jefferson that is constantly throw into white faces should tell you that… if it was so widespread, why aren’t we hearing about the high-yellow broods of many early presidents and founding father?

And for the record, I’ve heard several sources say it was TJ’s half-wit brother that used to consort with the blacks, playing fiddle and the fool and what-not.

The majority of intermixture occurred, and is still occurring, in the shanty towns and other poor sections of cites where freed blacks and whites mixed postbellum.

Whatever the case, it has nothing to do with racial superiority, just tactical superiority. Like you said that dynamic is at work between all ruling-class men and lower-class women regardless of ethnicity.

Religious and social pressures to marry, especially if a girl got pregnant by you.

No reliable birth control to keep pregnancy down, and therefore prevent the strongest pressure to make you marry.

Roe hadn’t happened, so most people had no known opinion about abortion; indeed, before ultrasounds, many were probably unsure of whether a baby existed pre-birth or not. Therefore, girls who sought out abortions were less likely to be bombarded with signs against it; most states had moderate abortion laws.

Fear of death imminent: great depression just passed, WW2, then cold war began with nuclear bombs exploding—people get hitched, think they might die tomorrow.

Social freebies not in total abundance yet (great Society not happened yet) for women, so they still felt no pull to abuse them and slut it up.

Vatican II not happened yet This is HUGE; by then, the Catholic church was both large in American and accepted in most places in the U.S., and even happily by Protestants, as it had a powerful moral force that was organized enough [Hays Code,etc.] to get shit done that mainstream Protestantism couldn’t anymore, due to WASPs being too wealthy to care about morality and dwindling numbers and antagonism amongst sects reducing power. Vatican II neutered the church badly, letting the faggot child molesters and feminists cut down its strong, authoritarian, Christ-like voice.

Transportation down, so most people lived within 100 miles of birthplace; since you can’t be anonymous, sex is harder without marriage, and people contribute more to building their society.

Blacks still in Jim Crow, can’t escape, so forced to marry by overbearing church and white people telling them not to be degenerate. Black fathers prevent a lot of black delinquency and more single mothers; black families prevent black single motherhood from infecting the non-black population.

Shame and – usually – financial ruin. Of course, extramarital sex by married women did not show in the stats, there was not much available in the form of blood tests. Unfair to the women ? Sure. But is worked.

You mean “How does our society work so hard to prmote it?” It takes a MASSIVE kleptocracy to make this sort of thing a viable option for women. If they had to make the sacrifices for this (instead of forcing so many men to work two jobs and STILL llve in grinding poverty), they would still be “votng with their vaginas” in massive numbers to do it the old way – marry a good and decent man that wanted to take care of them.

This is the result of 50 years of liberal policies. Liberalism destroys everything it touches. Now watch the unraveling of British society. Is anyone surprised that Islam is taking over? A people who replace its connection to its own history and culture with liberalism, is a people without a future. My God, they even started portraying 007 as liberal in recent movies. Muslims exploit the weakness of British society and aggressively works to replace it with Islam. If we don’t watch out, this is coming to a town near you here in North America. This is very upsetting.

Irish women are headstrong, skanky, man-handed bitches, that’s for sure. There were a lot that actually fought in battles before Christianity took over, the girls being so masculine. The best thing for Ireland was the Catholic church, which put a pimp hand strongly on those crazy cunts and gave them perfect alphas to worship—untouchable men (jesus, the saints, and the clergy) who were divinely appointed smarter than them and who wore beautiful clothes, spoke on the lecterns, and put them rigidly in place.

Nah, it can’t have been the jooz. It had to have been brought down by Catholics, or at least those purporting to be Catholics. If the perps were in fact evil rather than just simply stupid utopianists (like a young bimbo who loves Obama, say), secret societies like the Freemasons are a good bet to look at, as there are lots of them, and they all hated the Catholic Church and loved revolutions. Along with the fags that sneaked in, of course.

Yup. Because those men probably would have just… taken what they wanted, and forget the woman’s interest in it at all. But it doesn’t make for very appealing chick-lit if your female characters are treated in non-feminist-approved ways.

All this ought to give male feminists some pause for thought (though it will not). Right now, showing their sensitive new age guy side may allow a male feminist into the orbit of courageous, headstrong, feisty, sassy feminist womyn. And even to march alongside them in one of their slutwalks or other manifestations of female mass hysteria.

But when push comes to shove and the barbarians are at the gates, those same womyn will dump the male feminists in a heartbeat for the biggest, baddest warriors in the tribe, females showing the requisite signs of submission and lubrication to those same warrior males. Then what will our sensitive male feminists do? Hold a slutwalk?

For any male feminist reading this, you have got to understand that feminists are giving you one big sh*t test. And you are failing, big time. There’s still time to reclaim your self-respect as well as your claim on the tribe’s females.

lol. One thing about leftists—they never can see the future beyond the noses on their face, unless it’s some magical Marxist collective. Stupid turds.

The reason why they scoff at the slippery slope arguments put forth by anti-lefties. You can present facts from history showing how the Bismarkian social state led directly to Hitler, or how social security will bankrupt us, but they will shake their heads, stamp their feet, and ridicule you for daring to think longer than the next handout.

From your mouth to God’s ear. I hate them. Their stupidity is exasperating.

It doesn’t matter if you produce unequivocal proof they are wrong, they refuse to see it or admit it. They rather continue holding on to their horrid nonsense, than accept they were taught wrong all their lives.

I noticed liberals can’t accept defeat. They can’t accept they were wrong and recalibrate everything they believe their whole lives.

In contrast, conservatives can accept change to their thought. If you can show a conservative proof why your argument is right, he’ll change his mind. Not so with liberals.

Thomas Jefferson was a “liberal”. Folks like 0bama, Pelosi, Reid, Krugman, etc. are just totalitarians.

I tend to use “Leftist”, which in the USA can cause quite a stir with them. They do not like to be exposed for the death-eaters they are.

And +1 for the “a Leftist will never change his mind, a conservative can be swayed by facts.” For the Leftists, it’s not the means/basis for a conviction… it’s the ends. “Some people will kill their Mothers for the ends.” – Whitey Ford.

You’re right. Thanks for the correction. Calling leftist Liberals is an oxymoron. Leftists stole the term “liberal” from true freedom lovers. There is nothing liberal or free about them. They are the most rigid unwilling-to-see-truth and hating-free-speech bunch on earth. We talk about true liberty by curtailing the power of the state, but all they want to do is expand it like fascists and control every one.

“For the Leftists, it’s not the means/basis for a conviction… it’s the ends. “Some people will kill their Mothers for the ends.” – Whitey Ford.”

True! I often tell leftist, which drives them crazy because they know I am spot on, that they will vote for a serial killer if it helps further their agenda. Truth, honor, or character mean nothing. Nothing is scared enough to them; everything could be used to deceive and bring about their desired results.

It’s no “correction” so much as it is an effort to properly arm my comrades for the fight. You demonstrate directionally that you are not a fathead. Good. This is essential.. a building block. Now let’s figure out how to cow these Leftists back into their holes, so we can live a life in the sun. I’d like to do this with words and actions, not ordnance. I wish to live a life that includes good pussy, good food, and freedom to do as I please. Our Leftists want to outlaw all-a-that.

“It’s no “correction” so much as it is an effort to properly arm my comrades for the fight.”

And believe me, I am armed. I didn’t realize it before how much they hate being called leftists, but you are absolutely right. Thinking in retrospect, it drives them crazy, and for me there is no greater joy than agitating the hell out of them, the bugars.

I noticed if you expose them and shame them at the same time, some of them are actually very meek and they retreat. They are weak mentally and emotionally (because they are not used to being told they are wrong or stupid), and they hate to be met with a stronger force where they can’t pierce it with their bullying or their nonsense and half-truths. And they hate it when they can’t outsmart you verbally or manipulate the spoken word by inventing new terms to make themselves appear more intelligent, and their polices more innocuous.

Did you notice leftist have inoffensive descriptions for everything? It’s how they brainwashed the masses. Illegal aliens are undocumented workers. Global warming (as soon as it was discovered the hoax it is) is now the vague climate change. Blacks are African Americans. Transvestites are transgendered. Redistribution of wealth, is now social justice. And the list goes on and on. They hide their motives like a chameleon changes its colors. It’s deception all the way with them.

You really should be ashamed of yourself. The gov’t is not redistributing stolen wealth. The gov’t is stealing wealth and choosing whom to give it to, as if that’s why we need a gov’t. The gov’t is acting in a heavily prejudiced manner. The gov’t shouldn’t be engaging in favoritism. Since when is the gov’t in the business of picking winners and losers?

This is what leftist do. They penetrate govt’s and corrupt them into taking sides. Since the 1900s the US gov’t has not been on the side of liberty, prosperity, morality, property rights, the pursuit of happiness, etc…..

All it does is support social welfare for people who don’t deserve it because all they do is engage in degeneracy and crime all day long and don’t produce or contribute anything. Or it redirects resources to single women who start families without husbands raising defective kids.

So when you open your big fat mouth about redistributing stolen wealth, yeah, that’s right, it’s my wealth being stolen and redistributed to your cohorts.

“The State is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everyone. «

“You have to say there are too many great men in the world, there are too many legislators, organizers, teachers, companies, leads people, fathers of nations, etc.. «

“Too many people place themselves above humanity to dictate too many people doing business to take care of it. ”

“We must consider whether the law takes from some what belongs to them to give to others what is not theirs.
should be whether the law performs, for the profit of a citizen at the expense of others, an act that this citizen could not perform himself without crime. Hurry to repeal this Act; it is not only unfair, it is a fertile source of iniquities because it calls for retaliation, and if you’re not careful The exceptional extend, multiply and become systematic. ”

And all this he said over 1 ½ centuries ago. Wow! It appears as if nothing changed since. Those quotations sound like they are as fresh as this morning’s coffee I got from Starbucks.

Human outlook in the industrialized countries must have changed somewhere in the 1820s, which brought about the American civil war. It’s been downhill since, with the gov’t picking favorites, winners and losers. It’s a runaway train, and I am not sure we can stop it at this point when most of humanity in the developed world has been brainwashed to think that gov’t should rule them to such an extent.

Don’t get me wrong, I still think there is a role of gov’t, lest we all sink into anarchy, but besides protecting the borders and providing infrastructure and some very limited gov’t services (police, fire, etc…) why do we need such an iron-fist gov’t?

This isn’t going to stop because our side can’t convince people they don’t need such an all-encompassing gov’t controlling their lives. It seems most people don’t mind being slaves so long as they get their few bucks in their pocket and their idiotic entertainment.

They are not progressive at all. Their idea of progressive-ism is keeping all of us under their thumb as they dictate to us how we should live our lives. I thought that mindset died in 1776. Someone must have resurrected it without anyone noticing. Or were people just keeping their eyes wide shut? Don’t know.

Anyway, my other comment to you about the sperm wars in the beginning of the thread is also caught in moderation. Let’s hope both comments will show on the board soon.

: “I could count at that time, among my acquaintances, twelve happily married couples who were divided upon the issue of Munich, and in every case it was the husband who supported and the wife who opposed Chamberlain.”

Actually, generally no. Not in this case. The Russians were winning, but they just did not appear human enough – to most of the Fräuleins (or even the multitude of widows). Exceptions existed, in particular for the higher officers who often had more to offer, in several ways.

Say you were a horny, nubile slave girl. Picture any Frank Frazetta painting. Who, Sally, could do more for your material comfort and hypergamous desires. Thomas Jefferson, in the mansion, or Kunta Kinte, in the hut next to you.

Women LOVE a man more powerful than them coming onto them. They MORE EASILY give consent the greater the power disparity grows.

Remember all those feminazi whores who said they’d get on their knees for Clinton, and cooed at “Presidential Cum”? Yeah, those same bitches would argue about “power disparities” in one breath and get wet at Clinton’s power disparity over them.

To the defense of whites, all heterosexual sex in a patriarchal society is bound to be non-consensual.
But the slave-master logic could of course also be applied to white slave women captured by non-whites.

a bit smarter than the average ape…no where near even average IQ…but told all his life he’s “just as smart” as whites and yellows by other nigs and self-hating lefties.

Result? He actually never even bothered to improve his IQ a measly few points, being too arrogant from all this praise.So he actually doesn’t know “averagely” is a word, and compares the sex drive of booty hoes with the non-existent-sex-drive having pre-pubescent chicas, or that black women willingly put out for white men enslaving them.

You seem to perpetuate the well-kept myth that the French were on our side in WWII. Cute.

No, the French welcomed the NAZIs initially and many (most?) agreed with NAZI principles and especially Joo-hate. Go back to Wikipedia and read the section on “Social Policies” in the NAZI entry. It reads exactly like today’s Leftist’s Social Policies (and I mean EXACTLY), as long as you substitute “multiculti” for “racial purity” (eugenics was all the rage back then).

That France was a member of the “Allies” is just another lie you’ve been told. Walk away.

Groan. Using the terms “France” and “Germany” loosely, the two have been at war with each other since Charlemagne died in the 800s. Of course, it became a lot worse once they started to solidify as modern nation states with better capabilities of killing each other. One of the big steps was Napoleon putting France together as a nation state with uniform conscription, (mostly) uniform language etc. Which means Nappy gave rise to German nationalism, the Germans were not going to be stomped on that way again. And within less than a hundred years you had the Franco-Prussian war, then a little later WWI and WWII. There was no love lost between the two countries. But, you do have a small point – the countries were not ALL THAT DIFFERENT, except for mutually incomprehensible languages (except for the elites who were multilingual). And, as it often the case with fundamentally similar entities, each others’ fierce rivals. So it was not that hard for les femmes to see Germans as acceptable mating partners. On the Russian front, this was not so, the common Russian soldier was such a lowly bumpkin that he was considered only barely human. As I noted above, this latter did not apply to high-ranking officers.

All of this you write is true. But how does it refute my claim that, in fact, the French were in many ways sympathizers with the causes of the NAZIs, and in most respects welcomed the NAZIs when they came, and that France was in all major respects NOT a part of the “Allies”?

OK, I think we have reached maximum nesting depth here. Anyway, we seem to be at least slightly converging here – the French population at large were not the visceral haters of Germany that they were admonished, expected and described to be. (And vice versa, I would suspect.). Like many wars, it was a war of the élites but the fight of the masses. But that’s a LONG WAY from saying that they pretty much generally welcomed the Nazis.

But yes, empirically, at least after a while, some women out of necessity, convenience, greed, survival or – possibly – “gina tingle” became willing sex partners to German soldiers. One of the issues of such unions (although in Belgium) had a middle rank soldier by the name of Adolf Hitler as the father.

And again, this is not how it worked out on the Russian front, as noted earlier by me and others.

“Go back to Wikipedia and read the section on “Social Policies” in the NAZI entry. It reads exactly like today’s Leftist’s Social Policies (and I mean EXACTLY), as long as you substitute “multiculti” for “racial purity” (eugenics was all the rage back then).”

Just wanted to add that you are among the very few that post at the Chateau who see the NAZIs for who they really were, and doesn’t romanticize them or Hitler. Your thinking is very clear.

OK, I think we have exhausted this thread, but it’s such a good thread with so many great points and comments, I just had to say it.

I don’t think so, Lord. A conqueror is a conqueror, and propaganda has always betrayed hated enemies as less-than-human. That still has never stopped women from adapting to who is in power. If the Japanese had successfully followed up Pearl Harbor, you can bet most of the women in the US (black and non-black) would lust after Japanese tyrants.

Plus, following WW2, Russia basically occupied East Germany until the Berlin wall fell, controlling it and lording over its officials. You don’t think the Soviet power-guys got mad east German ass ? Please. power corrupts women, and absolute power makes them lie back legs spread all day.

Thousands of German women, according to sources, committed suicide. The German women certainly, from the available evidence, did NOT meet the Russians with open arms (and legs).

If you are arguing about the sexual dynamics, in Germany, after the dust settled that’s another matter. Remember many of Germany’s adult males were dead or soon to be dead (Soviet POW camps). The Russians were the majority of the males in Germany, so they Reds may have won (the sexual market) by default. Their domestic German male competition was not around.

After Germany rebuilt, clearly East German men > Russian soldiers (in every respect).

Some were raped, others were “raped”—women with husbands, boyfriends, home country loyalty, and religious reasons to deny that the sex was legitimate.

Yes, the Red Army was bloody vicious. But women love vicious men. Don’t fool yourself in thinking that somehow the same chicks who shacked up with Nazi officers didn’t jump on Russian ones with ardent fervor.

yes, lots of Russians got chicks by default, due to dead Germans/Poles/Romanians/etc. Guess what? That’s every other conquering army in history as well—your own men are dead, so you shack up with the victors. In fact, that’s what this passage quoted by Heartiste (we miss [well i can’t very well be someone i’m not]!) is all about—a captured woman submitting to the conquerors.

Remember, thanks to Napoleon, a lot of French blood got passed on, willingly, from Prussia to Italy to Spain to the Netherlands.

p.s. I can find no statistics for your “thousands of German women committed suicide” argument. Where? And, if so, how does this compare to any group of women vis-a-vis opposing conquering armies?

After Germany rebuilt, clearly East German men > Russian soldiers (in every respect).

—lol. BULLSHIT. The East Germans were pawns of the Russians. The Russians had the power. A Russian KGB agent had way more sexual capital than an East German Official then. Power is the aphrodisiac.

Put it this way: when the English tried to full occupy Ireland (post Henry 8-20thCentury) English soldiers stationed there got tons of free Irish chick ass. Does that mean the women liked Ireland run by England? No. It means they were women—willing to shack up with the powerful men.

American Indian fighters talked about bands of women from conquered tribes following the camps—wink wink, nudge nudge.

You are right in saying, that the east germans were pawns of the russians and that they held the power. But especially in the early years any kind of relationship between germans and russians were frowned upon by the soviet military and severely punished.

Even in the following decades till the fall of the wall few relationships between russians and germans occurred. Mainly due to heavy separation and a general non-acceptance in the population.

The overall economic situation in Eastern Germany was far better then in the Soviet Union. Even if the Soviets held far more power and were therefore the alphas it was far more advantageous to stay with a beta-german who could provide better (at least in terms of economic goods).

The horrible outcome: almost a thousand women and children commit suicide.
—This is an interesting topic.

1) What percentage of women invaded by a conquering army commit suicide, due to rape or fears of rape? For example, amongst white settlers of the American West, it was taught that if Indians overwhelmed a compound, women should kill themselves rather than be taken as booty by the red man. This, I believe, is one way societies try to ensure the genetic failure of a conqueror; if you can’t kill them on the field, at least deny them reproduction of your women, and also genetic mixing (keeping the us v. them mentality intact).

2) Children don’t commit suicide en masse. Their parents would kill them. However, this situation bespeaks also of the Old West philosophy; women would kill young children to prevent them from become squaws or traitors to white men.

The classic movie The Searchers explains this. In the movie, John Wayne searches for his “niece”, the lone survivor of an Indian slaughter of the rest of Wayne’s brother’s family. She was taken by Indians as a 7 year old and made the squaw of the chief of the tribe. By the time Wayne catches up with her, she’s a teenage girl, and thus likely having willing sex (and may have had children) by the Indian chief. Wayne’s desire isn’t to save her, but to kill her—because she’s “polluted” by non-white blood.

Earlier in the film, there actually was another female teenage survivor of the raid whom the Indians capture. Wayne finds her off screen, and implies she was raped and killed. However, he throws his knife into the dirt as he says this and digs it into the dirt—-the way hunters cleaned blood off their knives after a kill. Wayne’s actions implied he found a raped niece and slaughtered her for being touched by a non-white man.

Bottom line: there is a history of people killing women who associate with non-tribe members, and societal pressure for women to commit suicide to prevent rape or to prevent having children of conquerors. But the fact that some German women committed suicide does not change the fact that many more willingly opened their legs for the Red Army.

Well, you asked for a source to a comment, i delivered that source. I did not comment on it.

Normally i would concede your point, that women seek those in power. That urge is driven by wanting to better ones social standing, economic situation,…By seeking out members of the Societ Army in Eastern Germany none of the above could be attained, that’s why rape was much more common in this zone than in the other 3 zones. Therefore i strongly disagree that many women spread there legs willingly.

Definitely, and for women especially. Didn’t you say above, “Women LOVE a man more powerful than them coming onto them. They MORE EASILY give consent the greater the power disparity grows.”
I can’t agree with you more.

But I also can’t help feel that its befitting retribution for the Germans after the war they initiated. And the Russian were right to feel that they were the victors and that one of its privileges is getting the women. After all, the Russian is not the most civilized type of European and he can’t easily deny himself in the interest of civilized behavior. At least the allies controlled their behavior a little more.

Understatement of the year. Don’t think of the Russians you have met in Western Countries in the last 20 years. They are the cream. The average Russian, who does not live in Moscow or Saint Petersburg, is – and especially was – at best a country bumpkin, but more likely little more than an animal. And that’s what created the “Frau, komm” i.e. forcible rape. Although some women (like in other countries) do not resist physically all that much, figuring that they will be forced anyway and would rather skip the beatings. Sad but true.

Your statement is the problem. The Eastern front was a race war and you fault the Russians for knowing it and acting accordingly. Think about it? at some point, Europe stops and nonwhite people “start”; that line has to be drawn somewhere?

So called “civilized Europeans” stomped and slammed nonwhite people world wide for centuries based on their nonwhite classification; so what were Russians supposed to do when some “Europeans” invaded them?

Play nice?

I don’t think so

The Russians are neighbors with the nonwhite people of Asia, they don’t have the luxury of your proclivities… You are lucky to have such strong people serving as a buffer between yourselves and the Oriental savages of the East.

If you are an avid reader of the old testament and firmly believe in an eye for an eye, then yes, it is befitting.
Rapes have occured from within the ranks of the wehrmacht.
But i would not wish such fate on my worst enemy.

Just look at Putin to get an idea about the mentality we’re dealing with here. Give a Russian some absolute power and see what he’ll do with it. I’d say Russians and Muslims have a lot in common, mentality speaking. It’s something about the thinking in the East that facilitates this in its people.

Putin is one hell of a dangerous man. Obama the amateur “president” and hater of the people who elected him (notice I didn’t say his people, as we’re not his people. He’s a foreigner to us put in office with the help of immigrants from 3rd world countries) promised Putin the whole enchilada during his 2nd term. That means take away our nuclear weapons while Putin gets to keep his. Nice arrangement for Putin. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama is planning the end of America during his 2nd term. It’s been a wet dream for most of America’s haters, especially Black Liberation Theologists who have much in common with communists. Hell, all of Africa is heavily steeped in Communism and totalitarianism, so of course American Blacks have an affinity for such a gov’t which they hope to rule over us one day. God forbid they get their wish.

I can’t believe Obama is up 3% points over Romney this weekend. Romney was leading up until that last debate in which he was dreadful. He kept agreeing with the idiot and made the idiot sound like his policies were correct. I kept cringing. I guess he thought it’s better to agree with Obama than have him unleash his ‘you’re like Bush’ diatribes at him. But as far as I am concerned, if you can’t stand your ground and defend your argument and position you have no backbone.

Are you in the Caribbean already? Did the storm touch your island?

We had a Halloween party last night which was very nice and another one tonight but with what’s going on outside we just don’t want to leave home. The storm supposed to hit early tomorrow morning. Manhattan looks so weird tonight. It’s very windy outside.

Agreed. Remember he said he had or would visit all 57 states. Purposeful lapse or slip of the tongue. I don’t know. But nobody who grew up in the US (and most he have lived there but grew up elsewhere, like me) would NEVER make this kind of mistake. It is quite different in kind from addressing a crowd in Oklahoma as “dear Texans” when you are being dragged hither an yon as a candidate-not-yet-president. Such lapses are common and irrelevant.

And no, Sandy missed me, not much wind but the waves got stirred up some. Still puny by Pacific standards. Also, short wavelength (measured from one peak to the next), wavelength scales roughly with the size of the body of water.

Thanks for the kind words. I always try to be on point (whether others agree or not), and to avoid personal slugfests, they are sooo boring to read.

Believe it or not, I think you indeed have a point. It’s ironic that the most “civilized” Europeans ended up engaging in Genocide. So much for their civilized reputation. But in my first statement lies my true feelings about the most “civilized”:

“But I also can’t help feel that its befitting retribution for the Germans after the war they initiated.”

Anyway, I was mostly comparing Russian behavior with that of the Allies. The Allies didn’t behave like either the barbaric “civilized” Germans or the primitive Russians, which is why I often say that the English speaking Westerner is the most civilized of them all – Americans, Canadians, British, Australians, etc….we commit the least atrocities. If anything, we liberated more people than anyone else in history. So if I were you, I’d be a little bit more thankful to America and stop mocking it every chance you get, especially here. I doubt you are really Black, but if you are you should be thanking America, not looking to destroy it or get even with it, as most of the members of your race do. And if you are White, stop with this nonsense of impersonating Blacks and pretending they have an argument. They don’t; they simply hate America for no reason, other than jealousy. Their hatred has nothing to do with perceived injustices, racism or slavery. That’s ancient history by now. It’s time to move on. Anyone who is jealous of other people is destined to remain behind. Their jealousy precludes them from progressing because they are so full of hatred that they can’t see straight. Their brain cells are fried from hatred.

“Woman, you are dead to me.
And make the likes of Dresden, or the fate of the Sudeten Germans, befall your house.”

Deal with it, and grow thick skin and backbone. And grow a dick too. You are nothing but a child in a gown man’s body.

And guess what, anyone that glorifies those murdering barbaric cruel bastards will get the same fate as theirs. God has a way of re-visiting retribution on his unloved. Maybe it’s time for you to get reacquainted with your cherished Bible. And don’t skip the most pertinent points, now. I know you are blind but no one can be this blind, boy. Read what God says about how he punishes the unjust. Then keep quiet, lest you’d be next on his list. If I were you, I wouldn’t tempt him.

“Thanks for the kind words. I always try to be on point (whether others agree or not), and to avoid personal slugfests, they are sooo boring to read.”

You’re welcome. You are a decent and respectful man, not to mention interesting, and I enjoy reading your comments very much. Keep them coming. 🙂

Oh, I got to ask you, how did you manage to make your response appear right below the comment I posted to you? How come it didn’t go below my last one to Greg? Interesting. If each response can go just below the pertinent comment, this blog would be better organized. Oh well, it doesn’t really matter, it’s just that I like organization. Just sayin.

If you hit the “Reply” button on the email or on the blog, your reply will typically go right under that to which you are replying. However, there is a maximum depth of about five. Beyond that, the comments will just be strung up in the order they came in if you hit the email reply button. And on the blog itself the Reply button will not show up, you have to go upwards till you get to a lower nesting level – the results should be the same.

Per this historical footnote, it doesn’t appear the Russian soldiers were particularly popular:

In a report that appeared in August 1945 in the Washington DC Times-Herald, an American journalist wrote of what he described as “the state of terror in which women in Russian-occupied eastern Germany were living. All these women, Germans, Polish, Jewish and even Russian girls `freed’ from Nazi slave camps, were dominated by one desperate desire — to escape from the Red zone “
“In the district around our internment camp … Red soldiers during the first weeks of their occupation raped every women and girl between the ages of 12 and 60. That sounds exaggerated, but it is the simple truth. The only exceptions were girls who managed to remain in hiding in the woods or who had the presence of mind to feign illness – typhoid, dyptheria or some other infectious disease … Husbands and fathers who attempted to protect their women folk were shot down, and girls offering extreme resistance were murdered.”

The Allies made a show of not raping the locals. Which is not to say they didn’t rape the locals (see: Southern France), but the meme was that the Allies were going to give you chocolate and hose, and the Russians were going to rape you to death.

Interesting, yes, Having lived in both Sweden and the US for decades each,
I have seen some of this – anecdotal almost by definition,

But there are deep questions. He brings up but then dodges causality, at the very end, But what causes what is important. Sweden has – or at least had – a homogenous population, for example. This can both reduce stress etc. and increase inequality.

More importantly, a country with reduced stress can become – and indeed does become – complacent and underachieving. Would rather live in a
country with happy Elois or one that is driving development? Is complacency a worthwhile social goal?

As a Swede, I agree with you on the complacency/stress issue. There must be something driving things in a society. You loose that when you elevate poor performers too much,as we tend to do in Sweden and to some extent also in other european societies. Compplacency is absolutely NOT a worthwhile goal.

To a very large extent, Whitey has indeed become fat & lazy. Not just in Sweden. Who do you think women (of any race) will find more sexually appealing: The pasty, double-chinned, university educated middle management executive or the musclebound, ripped, hungry immigrant athlete? Also, when you watch a soccer match these days and German striker Ndugu Mdwenge puts the ball past Swedish goalie Ibrahim Abdullah ben Mohammed, something’s off…….

Males are entities of agency. We must have a goal, a challenge, a mountain to climb. Without this we self-destruct.

It makes me sad to see what is happening to Sweden. But the death-eaters (leftists) allowed the “real” death-eaters (muslimin) into their country for multiculti and “fairness” reasons, and now the entire country is reaping the whirlwind.

You won’t be stopping the muslimin hordes in the mountain passes of Andorra this time, folks. You let them into your own backyards already… “immivasion”. Time to get tough and kick them out, if you are to survive. It will be “unfair”. But it’s an existential thing.

Extra points for the Time Machine reference. I recently re-read it for exactly this purpose – I see us evolving in some ways to this future.

Privately, some of the Social Democrats who started this immivasion admit that it was a great way to get reliable voters. And foreigners get to vote in local elections after a short time, no need to even be citizens.

I suspect other Western countries had lefties planning the same thing, most notably Teddy Kennedy who re-wrote the US immigration laws in 1965.

Ok, you’re becoming my thread hero. You know that Ted Kennedy started all this madness. 0.1% of all Americans know this. Please move here. But wait, you can’t… because of… Ted Kennedy. So you see how this goes.

The Leftists in the US realized long ago that their policies resulted in low birth rate, and that the only way they could consolidate power was to import low class people and give them free bread and circuses. It’s the modern Rome. So far it’s working very well. Which is a major problem for folks like me.

Hah. I actually DID move to the US, 37 years ago. And moved OUT of the US, maybe permanently, a month ago. If Romney wins, warts and all, I might _consider_ moving back. But probably not. Should have left on Jan 20, 1989. Taking off in the morning…

I needed to renew some prescriptions yesterday. No need
to find a local physician, I just showed the pharmacy
samples of empty bottles, and they refilled.
Also friendly people, and, what I did not expect: they
know what they are doing, more so than in the US.

A few days ago I talked to the office of one of my
California physicians, and whoever I was talking to kept
suggesting that I come in to the office – and I had told
her where I was.

Now the french youth who made that declaration of war video are being ridiculed and threatened with dissolution by the french left and mainstream media.

Europe is lost. There’s not gonna be any kicking out of anyone. And right-wingers there they don’t even have the same hbd/game awareness. By the time european whites figure it out, they will be less than 10% of the population. Good luck fighting with those numbers. Even if whites revert right now to K-selected culture and demography, they are to become a minority anyway, all because of the white female problem.

The US are risking the same thing with latinos. More than half the births in the US are non-white. US are fucked.
We’re only useful as an example for future successful ethnic groups and civilizations, for what shouldn’t be done.

My immediate reaction is that somebody who bashes the country where he is gainfully employed, but has no plans to emigrate, is bound to be a charlatan.

Note also that he deals with the “correlation does not imply causation” issue by hand-waving.

On the positive side, he recognizes that redistribution is not the only solution to inequality; on the negative side, he thinks that it can be a solution.

The best that I can say for him is that maybe his idea about stress is worth investigating further. Still, I suspect that the US would improve in most indicators, including stress, simply by adopting a low-carb diet.

Long story, but I was in Iraq in 2003-04 as a civilian working for the USA.

I had the chance to travel around and meet a lot of Iraqis, even speak to groups through interpreters. It was not that dangerous at the beginning. Basically, I was holding court as an official of the occupying power and was accompanied by soldiers and civilians of various nationalities, mostly US.

One thing I noticed was the direct looks and smiles I would get from Iraqi women, including women in hijabs and abayas and much younger women. I talked about it to a similarly-situated co-worker, and he noticed the same thing.

These looks were direct and friendly enough to swell my dick. Ah, but for force protection and travel rules there could have been some fun . . . . these wars have to be the least sexy ones ever.

Gobineau applied his theory of racial differences to the problem with which he began the book: Why do civilizations rise and fall? Racial differences have ordained forever that only a few groups have the capacity to lift themselves from the primitive tribal stage.

These dynamic Aryan groups then conquer and dominate their neighbors. This, however, is their downfall, because empire-building brings the conquering races into contact with people who do not have the same abilities, and mixture leads to degeneracy: “From the very day when the conquest is accomplished and the fusion begins, there appears a noticeable change of quality in the blood of the masters.”

Gobineau even had a theory of immigration: Civilizing races build cities that attract inferiors from distant realms who then drag down that civilization.

Can someone find the study that shows that mothers instinctively breastfeed male babies as soon as they request it (when they cry etc…), but tend to breastfeed female babies on a schedule.
Mothers instinctively know that female babies play games.

In case the information didn’t sink in: Even female babies shit test for fuck sake…
Not only that, but their female mothers fucking know it!

I heard a guy mentioning this study a few days ago, but I can’t find it.

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree, in regards to female fantasy and pornography. I agree that this book looks to be representative of the genre, but beyond the accuracy of the barbarian hypergamy attraction, the analysis is off.

Most female emo-porn-lit doesn’t reveal what we actually want in a man, some deeper desires we’re not consciously aware of, but rather, what we think we want. What a woman would define the perfect man as. What we wish we could have from him. What we wish we could get, emotionally and psychologically, out of him.

Typically, this involves a set-up with a dark/dangerous/mysterious/depressed/weird alpha man, and a female character we can project ourselves into. At first, he exhibits typical alpha behavior and attempts to dominate us, and while we may enjoy it, we also resolve that he is unhappy with doing this to us, and we must therefore cure him of his alpha ways. Only we truly understand the depth of life and the meaning of true love. And thus, through the power of our love for him, he comes to understand that we are worth so much more than his shallow appreciation of our beauty and embraces the transformative powers of our inner goddess in his life, rendering him now the perfect provider beta, slavishly devoted to us, with ourselves firmly, but benevolently, in control of the relationship.

Women’s fantasies involve us wanting to conquer men through emotional and sexual means – we want to turn that unpredictable, unreliable alpha into the stable and loving beta (and yes, even 50 Shades has this theme in it). Women’s innate desires are for men to conquer us. Most of us wouldn’t want to actually be with the kind of man we see in these books. But, at the same time, most of us would be horrified to read a book written by a man, attempting to explain these desires to us (think any of the stuff that happens to the women in James Clavell novels). We don’t find our own desires to be arousing, but rather, disturbing and offensive, when clearly explained.

Of course, you can get around this by making both the characters in the story men, and projecting all those actual female qualities and desires on to the bottom in the relationship. Then it’s endlessly arousing.

I hope you realize that once you have turned the alpha into a beta, you will despise him, right?

I completely realize this, and it’s one of the reasons I find the genre to be such an uncomfortable thing. A lot of women don’t, though, and thus spend a lot of time drooling over guys that they’d never want to be with. It’s a really, really fascinating dichotemy between what we fantasize about, and what we actually want. I don’t really know what the answer is. Hamsters, maybe?

Look no further than the covers of ‘romance’ novels. Invariably, they show a stunning beauty (a 12 on a scale of 10) with lustrously flowing hair of various colors – although red seems to be a favorite – and proudly sweilling D-cups barely concealed by the soon-to-be-ripped bodice. Her features are almost always Northern/Central European, even in the rare cases where the heroine is supposed to be ‘Spanish’ or an Indian ‘Princess’. Such women contrast very starkly indeed with the women who actually read the books. There’s even more similarity between the guys adorning said covers. In fact, they could all be twins. So much for beauty being in the eyes of the beholder. A richly full head of hair -usually darker than the girls’ – cookie-cutter Brad Pitt/soap stud facial features, which, again, are almost always of a Northern/Central European cast, atop a body any male swimsuit model would be proud of. Sometimes, the guys’ head isn’t even in the picture, but the abs feature prominently. See, there’s a REASON why I would LOVE to be able to go to the clubs shirtless…….

The MLP culture, for American men, might be the equivalent of the Grass Eater culture, for Japanese men.

It’s a way, for non-Alpha males to unplug from the (very fucked up) society and retreat into a low, stress world. Plus, it allows the males to connect to the Feminine since the traditional route (marrying a nice, feminine woman and having a daughter) is out-of-reach/suicidal for many first world males today. PUAs sarge to get the Feminine. That is not possible (psychologically) for these guys.

Check out 4chon.net, the New board. There is My Little Pony (they call it Bronie) stuff all over the board

People here are quick to trash the idea of the poorly-written romance novel. But if you really are going to equate it to female porn (which, for the record, I agree with. It absolutely is female porn), then you have to acknowledge that male porn videos are hardly worthy of Oscars. They both have their purpose and it surely isn’t intellectual.

“This pattern — of women of defeated tribes quickly acquiescing to the rulership and the sexual privilege of the conquering men who slew the women’s brothers and fathers and husbands — is seen all over the world, and has likely evolved to preserve the female reproductive prerogative.”

Judging by what I’ve read about the colonial period, the Portuguese in Brazil seem to have lusted after Black slave girls they brought there more than anyone else, which is why Brazil has the worlds’ 2nd largest Black population today, Nigeria being no.1. Most White settlers in Africa apparently kept their sweet distance from the local population, most notably the British, who didn’t even trust them far enough to use them as cannon fodder for the Crown, preferring to import Indian soldiers to do much of the fighting (and running away).

There is a difference from the beginning. Spanish and Portuguese colonization consisted mainly of single men. British colonisation consisted typically of families settling, except for a small number of government officials who arrived with or without families. The rest follows.

Also, I think men “lust after” whatever is available after a long enough period at war or sea. Heck, men turn gay in prison. I’m not sure how that translates to genuine attraction or preference though.

Actually, no. The “Liberation” of Eastern Europe was anything but welcome. The locals suffered worse under the Russians than under the Germans.
In particular, anybody who had in any way cooperated with the Germans was executed by the Russians, regardless of whether such cooperation was low-level work and dictated by the economic necessities of survival. Ask any Pole for example. (There is one obvious exception: Jewish people fared worse under the Germans, as is well known.)

Her friend hung out with us for two days
my chick says maybe she will let her suck my dick but only if she tells her to doesn’t want me initiating it
i don’t need the two
we fuck for three hours in next room
then later
my chick left us alone
i didn’t jump her bones
they have falling out cause chick alone in my house
and the friend goes cold turkey on the hard shit
i drop her at parents house an hour away
i promise to take her white water rafting
its threesome week

not just next room the bathroom the kitchen
i think she likes being smashed off a wall
or into the sink head banging off shit breaking her body down
the bed is passe smash their face from behind over the sink into the bathroom cupboards legs banging off the bottom cupboards fucking the shit out of them
knowing that shit got to fucking hurt but they loving it

guess i am living the female porn book at moment he he he
what is it bunch of fights then bitch turns dude into beta happily ever after
naaa never work out
she is happiest when some other ho is on my phone calling and i say not now i’m hanging out with someone
and she says hanging out with someone is that your girlfriend
i’m like naaa i ain’t got one lolzzzz
when my phone was quiet after i cancelled the ho’s she acted diferent.
she likes competition just like they all do keeps em on their fucking toes

Typical female porn… Those who understand what it is about this type of scenario that attracts women, can use it to their advantage… Since she’ll feel “helpless to resist”…. Of course, she isn’t – but no other woman would ever find fault with her “giving in”…

Being no woman’s ideal – I’m older, shorter, etc then her laundry list of things she “thinks” she wants, but yet she’ll end up in my bed, and advertise it to others – so it’s win-win for me… And that is all that I care about…

1) Yes.
2) Only on weekdays.
3) That’s a difficult question, but if you submerge one in water and she sinks, at least she’s not a witch.
4) Only with a consent form and notarized waiver disclaiming liability from all potentially racist activities.

“I have noticed that girls will try to drag their men through shitty hoods instead of taking safer routes. They test men’s protectiveness.”

Damn bitches. They always try to start shit. Last weekend I stopped at a drive thru with a girl before taking her home for the bang. This drunk chick started talking shit to the cashier simply because he asked if he got her order correct. The dude was working at a goddamn Burger King at 2 in the morning and the last thing he needed was some half-dressed slut mocking his career choice. Not wanting spit in my Whopper, I promptly apologized on her behalf and called him “sir” to stroke his ego, which she got upset over before I responded with “shut the fuck up, you’re being a bad kitty.” Pussy got wet in no time.

I don’t know. That never occurred to me. I think it was because if she refused to apologize (which was most likely) then I would’ve looked like a chump in front of everyone. So I simply took the initiative in apologizing for her then chastised her afterwards. That way she had no power in the interaction.

It was a drive through, you would have only looked like a chump in front of the guy and i highly doubt that. If she would have refused to apologize and thrown a temper tantrum she would only have revealed her true self – a spoilt little brat with no manners at all…
What are parents doing in such a case – they chastise their kid in public and take away a privilege…
You probably would have missed out on getting laid, but was she really worth it?

It’s been covered numerous times over the past few months… probably most eloquently by King A, although others have put a good oar in on dispelling pretty lies, and not allowing the sworn enemy to control language and define what is or isn’t “acceptable discussion”.

If all you’re concerned about is “getting laid and getting rich”… and, oh, yeah, politically correct language… then we are from different worlds and further discussion is pointless.

For the record, I don’t much care for the racial epithets either… but most of the time the guys that use them are merely paying back in coin of the realm… and it’s the blacks themselves that invariably throw around most of their own self-disparaging epithets.

A large portion of this blog’s commenters are old, bitter, bible thumping betas. It comes with the territory. Just look at it as aging betas venting about beta shits. I’ve long learned to weed them out since they do nothing to help my game.

Sorry, nitelily. raised by grandparents. sent to father, then mother. got beaten by dad, raped by his friend, stalked- and when I asked for some help from him- got told to “get a fur coat from him.” I was 16. Mom tried to pimp out me and my younger sister for groceries. She fucked my boyfriend to prove that she could take any man of mine. I was 17, he was a virgin, and I was trying to pretend I’d never lived the nightmare.
My parents plan on dying old and alone, and I don’t ever rush in with any other plans.
I’m married. My entire job in life is to stay married and protect the kids from may life.
Train-wrecks are trainwrecks.

Had some luck with this when I can find a pretext to use it. High risk, I don’t suggest it when she’s sober, there has to be some segue to get away with it, and you need a Viking vibe to pull it off.

“I find it offensive when people say my ancestors raped, burned, and pillaged their way across Europe. It implies incompetence. First you pillage, THEN you burn, unless you’re looking to add to your ash collection. And you save rape for last. It’s more romantic by firelight.”

At first, he exhibits typical alpha behavior and attempts to dominate us, and while we may enjoy it, we also resolve that he is unhappy with doing this to us, and we must therefore cure him of his alpha ways. Only we truly understand the depth of life and the meaning of true love. And thus, through the power of our love for him, he comes to understand that we are worth so much more than his shallow appreciation of our beauty and embraces the transformative powers of our inner goddess in his life, rendering him now the perfect provider beta, slavishly devoted to us, with ourselves firmly, but benevolently, in control of the relationship.

Having read a few romance novels in my time (ahem–mainly for the “good” parts), this is a common enough pattern in them. He changes for her owing to the power of her luv. OK, fair enough. Males get their way through force, females via emotional manipulation. But the dilemma is, in the real world:

(1) He usually does not change. What happens is that she wakes up one day realizing she is with an abusive male (after all, he slaughtered her family!). And she is trapped. So what does she do? I don’t mean in today’s vagina-whipped Western world, but if this were, say, 900AD and she’s been carried off to Iceland? Or if tomorrow she wakes up as the girlfriend of a gang-banger or third world warlord who has the guns?

(2) You have to ask, how much of Western policy towards the more militant sector of the third world is the result of the feminization of government policy? We can bring in third worlders who will automatically assimilate, or turn Afghanistan into a paradise of male-female equality, because our-luv-for-them-will-make-them-change ™.

1) That’s what I’m saying. You couldn’t write a real-world romance, set in this time period, accurate to this time period, and have it be sexually appealing to women. I would deeply admire a writer who took on a plot that included the elements you bring up, but I doubt it would get published. We don’t read romance novels for their true-to-life value; we read them to feel the tingles. Would you want to watch porn of real, representative lesbians having sex? Same principle.

You are absolutely right. The guy – especially the guy in 900AD – doesn’t change. The things he does to her are going to be seen as horrible and upsetting by the modern woman. A woman, in that time, would either have to kill herself, kill the husband, or force herself into finding a way to live with the situation (which is why, IMHO, my gender is so emotionally flexible. We’ve been forced to become very pragmatic with our affections). It would be more Rome than Game of Thrones in that regard.

You aren’t going to titillate very many of the mimiso, cat-owning, single-mom crowd with romance novels containing historically accurate representations of this book’s situation. Probably couldn’t get it past the feminist censors at the publishing houses anyway. You can find stuff like that online, but it’s usually pretty twisted and disturbing.

Romance novels are fantasy, same as visual male porn. Would you want to watch porn with real lesbians having sex? It’s kind of the same thing for us. It’s not about reality.

“This pattern — of women of defeated tribes quickly acquiescing to the rulership and the sexual privilege of the conquering men who slew the women’s brothers and fathers and husbands — is seen all over the world, and has likely evolved to preserve the female reproductive prerogative.”
Correct.
In modern times, we call this Stockholm Syndrome.

I’ve discussed this with men from various countries, and one thing I find symptomatic is that it is the “beta” male type male feminists who show the biggest signs of Stockholm Syndrome. They are most in support of unrestricted third world immigration, and who get the most bent out of shape at people who call for restrictions on such immigration. Even proposing restrictions is a thoughtcrime causing these males to stamp their feet over racism-xenophobiabism-Islamophobiasm.

What is going on here? Do male feminists not see the threat to their own genetic future? Have they been so assimilated into the feminist Borg that they are promoting feminized values, even to their own self-destruction? Are they going to stand by as so many Incas while the new conquistadores cut them down in the public squares?

“If you listen closely to a woman — very closely, to the subtext between the lines, and to the details that trickle from her when she’s giving her inner voice an unrestricted outlet for expression — you will catch glimpses of the true nature of her sexuality.”

Speaking about the true nature of a woman’s sexuality, it is directly connected to her soul. Therefore, sex is very spiritual for women. That’s why when a woman engages in meaningless frivolous sexual activity with multiple partners, she slowly dies inside. At first, it’s intangible – she becomes cynical about her happiness, and it destroys her emotionally and spiritually. But, eventually she starts looking outwardly like she looks inside, physically used and abused.

That’s why a woman that restricts sex to one partner she loves, looks so much more vibrant and alive; she walks her head held high, her eyes sparkle and her face glows.

Sex with multiple partners is not the domain of women. It’s better suited for men, even though I think that after sewing his wild oats for a while, a man too should find his calm. Otherwise, he risks living an empty existence, never finding his peace, and giving in to perpetual pessimism. It’s not a good way to live either.

Hehe. The average Russian soldier had just TOO many counts against him. Among which:
1) Total brutality (being a ruffian is one thing, but it can to too far)
including out-and-out-rape,
2) NOTHING material to offer, unlike German, British and most particularly American soldiers.
3) Total country bumpkin with no scintilla of culture – even if alien culture.

Again, superior officers were in a different class. Ironically, in the Soviet Union where everybody was free and equal, the life of an officer differed from that of the enlisted men by a MUCH wider chasm than was the case with any of the other combatantant, Tovarishch Genaral!

You are absolutely right. The guy – especially the guy in 900AD – doesn’t change. The things he does to her are going to be seen as horrible and upsetting by the modern woman. A woman, in that time, would either have to kill herself, kill the husband, or force herself into finding a way to live with the situation (which is why, IMHO, my gender is so emotionally flexible. We’ve been forced to become very pragmatic with our affections). It would be more Rome than Game of Thrones in that regard.

One reason HBO Rome was fascinating was that it provided a look at human drives without the whitewashing of modern proprieties. There’s no second thoughts among the Romans about torture, slavery, and other things which would bring a blush to the contemporary cheek.

Romance novels play off of female fantasies, just as the James Bond franchise plays off of male fantasies. But I wonder, how many contemporary women enter into “relationships” with men in the hopes that “he” will change, and then find to their horror that he does not?

And what impact does this have on NiceGuys(tm) who see women showing preference for BadBoys(tm)? Does this lead to men chucking the decency and instead moving into the realm of the BadBoy(tm) to gain access to females? What impact does this have on society, long run?

Perhaps things will degenerate to the point where the barbaric pleasures of the Dark Ages will return? (Now where is that Viking helmet…?)

Haaa that’s rich….if you put up that blurb without explanation I would’ve thought it was a tongue-in-cheek piece written by the Chateau. One of the reasons that kind of bummy literature is worth considering for our purposes is that average women gobble it up like crazy. They love that stuff, because it’s perfectly in line with what their fantasies.